The Impact of the Renovation of Grassland on the Development of Segetal Weeds in Organic Farming

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend to accept the ms. in the present form. 

Author Response

12.05. 2022

Response to Rev. 1 and 2

the manuscript “The impact of renovation of grassland on the development of segetal weeds in organic farming”

Agriculture-1723399

I’am very grateful for the positive reviews of our article. The reviewers' comments helped to remove many deficiencies in our manuscript.

Thank you for taking the time to review and for your valuable comments.

I sent the manuscript to the correct of language conducted by MDPI.

On behalf of the authors

Eliza Gaweł

12. 05. 2022.

List of all corrections to the manuscript “The impact of renovation of grassland on the development of segetal weeds in organic farming”

Agriculture-1723399

1. Line 18. Removed (K); Added (H)
2. Line 25. Added “.”.
3. Line 87. Added (Leyss.).
4. Line 126. Added (NR).
5. Line 156. Removed “s”.
6. Line 164. Removed “H’”; Added ‘H’’.
7. Line 165. Removed “SI”; Added “SI”.
8. Line 167. H’”; Added ‘H’’; Removed “SI”; Added “SI”.
9. Line 167. Removed “acccording”; Added “according”;
10. Line 167. Remove the underlining.
11. Line 172. Removed “i”.
12. Line 196. Removed “onsward”; Added “ on sward”
13. Removed H’ SI; Added H’; SI.
14. Line 213. Removed “s”; ; removed “R” ; added “r”.
15. Line 259. Table 6. Transfer “Equisetum arvense.
16. Table 6. Total herb dicotyledonous removed 92.83; added 92.53.
17. Table 6. “Sum Dicotyledonous and Monocotyledonous herb and weeds “Added “and Horsetail”.
18. Line 261. Added “t”.
19. Lines 262-276. Latin names corrected in italics.
20. Line 304-314. Latin names corrected in italics.
21. Line 316. Corrected “Thus, In regrowth”; Thus, in regrowth.
22. Line 330. Removed “treatment”.
23. Line 344. Removed ‘)”.
24. Line 348. Removed [11,12].
25. Line 383. Added “.”.

I am uploading in Word and pdf tab 6 and figure 4.

Thank you for attention

Eliza Gaweł

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has revised the entire article relatively thoroughly, and the questions I asked have been well answered, and I think the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Author Response

12.05. 2022

Response to Rev. 1 and 2

the manuscript “The impact of renovation of grassland on the development of segetal weeds in organic farming”

Agriculture-1723399

I’am very grateful for the positive reviews of our article. The reviewers' comments helped to remove many deficiencies in our manuscript.

Thank you for taking the time to review and for your valuable comments.

I sent the manuscript to the correct of language conducted by MDPI.

On behalf of the authors

Eliza Gaweł

12. 05. 2022.

List of all corrections to the manuscript “The impact of renovation of grassland on the development of segetal weeds in organic farming”

Agriculture-1723399

1. Line 18. Removed (K); Added (H)
2. Line 25. Added “.”.
3. Line 87. Added (Leyss.).
4. Line 126. Added (NR).
5. Line 156. Removed “s”.
6. Line 164. Removed “H’”; Added ‘H’’.
7. Line 165. Removed “SI”; Added “SI”.
8. Line 167. H’”; Added ‘H’’; Removed “SI”; Added “SI”.
9. Line 167. Removed “acccording”; Added “according”;
10. Line 167. Remove the underlining.
11. Line 172. Removed “i”.
12. Line 196. Removed “onsward”; Added “ on sward”
13. Removed H’ SI; Added H’; SI.
14. Line 213. Removed “s”; ; removed “R” ; added “r”.
15. Line 259. Table 6. Transfer “Equisetum arvense.
16. Table 6. Total herb dicotyledonous removed 92.83; added 92.53.
17. Table 6. “Sum Dicotyledonous and Monocotyledonous herb and weeds “Added “and Horsetail”.
18. Line 261. Added “t”.
19. Lines 262-276. Latin names corrected in italics.
20. Line 304-314. Latin names corrected in italics.
21. Line 316. Corrected “Thus, In regrowth”; Thus, in regrowth.
22. Line 330. Removed “treatment”.
23. Line 344. Removed ‘)”.
24. Line 348. Removed [11,12].
25. Line 383. Added “.”.

I am uploading in Word and pdf tab 6 and figure 4.

Thank you for attention

Eliza Gaweł

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I studied the mansucript and unfortunately must conclude that this manuscript does not meet the basic criteria in an international Journal. I cannot list all deficits here. The manuscript needs to be completely rewritten before detailed revision can be given.

Here are some suggestion:

It is not possbible to understand how the experiment was conducted.

Aims of the study are not clear. Hypotheses are missing.

Several parameters/indices are mentioned but not explained in the M&M with equations.

No results are presented in the abstract.

The figures do meet meet international standard. Descriptions on the axis are wrong.

Decimal mumbers in the tables are given with "," instead of "."

Conclusions are not clear.

Author Response

Response to Review 1.

"The impact of renovation of grassland on the development of segetal weeds in organic farming" Agriculture 1611578

Round 1.

We thank the reviewer for reading the manuscript and taking the time to prepare a review of our article. We conducted field research during 3 growing seasons and spent many days compiling the results. Therefore, I would like to improve this article well in order to get the reviewer's approval to publish the research results described in the manuscript.  Corrections in the text are marked in green.

A detailed response to the review:

1. "It is not possbible to understand how the experiment was conducted.

I have made appropriate explanations and additions to the text of the manuscript which will make it easier to understand how the field research was carried out. Apart from that, I briefly explain to the reviewer what the field experiment we carried out consisted of. Well, in 2013, a field experiment was set up on a degraded grassland, single-factor by randomized block method. In this experiment, we considered the effect of 2 renovation methods (P - after ploughing to a depth of 30 cm; H - after surface agitation with a compact harrow to a depth of 5 cm) on yield and weed infestation of the sward in comparison with a degraded grassland - NR (non-renovated treatment). In 2013, in the first days of June, according to the experimental scheme, the degraded sward was destroyed by deep ploughing (30 cm) on the renovated treatments by ploughing (P), and a compact disc harrow (H) was used on the treatments with surface soil agitation to a depth of 5 cm. The mixture of legume seeds with grasses was sown on 20 June on treatments with renovation after ploughing (P ) and after compact harrowing (H). In the NR (non-renovated) plots, no tillage or reseeding of the sward with the seed mixture was applied.

In 2014-2016, weed weight and sward yield were determined in 3 sward outgrowths, biomass index, weed number and indices of Shannon-Wiener's diversity index (H') and Simpson's dominance index (SI) were calculated. A 0.5mx1m frame was used to make these determinations. First, all weed species were counted and removed from the area occupied by the frame. Then, after removing the weeds, the sward was cut from the frame area to estimate the yield.

2. I added a research hypothesis and reworded the research aim.
3. The reviewer's fair comment concerns the mathematical equations in chapter "2.3 Diverity indicators". I have complied with this comment and numbered the equations.
4. Note about the drawings - the reviewer rightly noted the inappropriate appearance of the drawings. I have corrected the drawings and brought them into line with the editor's requirements.
5. I agree with the comment that the numbers in Table 6 and Fig. 4 are incorrectly written. In Table 6, I have replaced ',' with '.' in the numbers, while in Fig. 4 I have correctly placed the legend on the vertical and horizontal axes and written the numbers correctly.
6. I have reworded the conclusions.

I hope that the changes made to the text, tables and figures have improved the scientific value of our manuscript.

Yours sincerely

Corresponding author Eliza Gaweł

List of all corrections to the manuscript “The impact of renovation of grassland on the development of segetal weeds in organic farming”

Agriculture-1611578

Abstract

1. Line 14 added use, removed discontinued, added discontinuation of; removed results in restricted; added compromise; remove: < and; added and feed quality, remove of the quality.
2. Line 18. Because of the importance of grasslands for fodder production and numerous ecosystem-related benefits for man and for the environment sward degradation ought to be prevented through renovation.
3. Line 19. Added (province of Mazowieckie, Poland). Added “The experiment involved sward reseeded after ploughing (P), after disking with compact harrow (H) and non-renovated sward as the control treatment.”
4. Line 24. Remove “Likewise, both renovation methods”. Added “The ploughing-based renovation method (P), removed “ restricting” added strongly restricting.
5. Line 26. Removed “index”, added “function” ; added “harrow method (H) and the”
6. Line 27. Added “population in the studied treatments Of these, Taraxacum officinale, Achillea milefolium, Capsella bursa-pastoris and Plantago maior”
7. Line 55. Added “Agricultural use of grasslands and weather conditions also affect the degree of weed infestation and the proportion between herbage yield and weed weight of the sward. Sward biomass and weed weight are negatively correlated and, immediately after sward renovation, annual weeds are more numerous than perennials (11).”
8. Line 78. Removed “consists”, added “involves”; removed “of”
9. Line 79. Added “,”; removed “or, in”
10. Line 82. Added “rapid” ; remove “of the”.
11. Line 87. Removed “cows’”; added “of cows”.
12. Line 88. Added “a”
13. Line 89. Remove “propr”; added “adequate”…..added “particular”.
14. Line 90.added “in the sward”, ; remove “species” added “component”.
15. Line 91 Added “, whereas intensive use and overgrazing favour prevalence of grass in the sward”.
16. Line 92. Remove “competive”; added “to compete”.
17. Line 94 “removed Leyss”.
18. 103. Removed “that dealt”; added “dealing”.
19. Line 106. Added “s”
20. Line 107. Removed in; added which in ; added is; removed “reducing”; added “reduced”; removed “the control measures”.
21. Line 116. Added “The research hypothesis assumes an increase in sward productivity and a decrease in weight and number of weeds as a result of sward renewal”.
22. Line 118. The objective of this study was to determine how two sward renovation methods affect specific composition of the weeds, weight and their biodiversity and domination indicators of weeds infesting an organically managed piece of grassland.
23. Line 120. Added “The objective of the study conducted under organic farming management was to find out whether and to what extent two methods of grassland renewal would affect the performance of the sward including yields specific composition and weight of weeds, Shannon-Wiener’s diversity index (H’) and Simpson’s dominance index (SI) vis-a-vis those indicators in non-renovated sward (NR). The study was also supposed to furnish information on which of the two grassland renewal methods would be more beneficial to farming practise in terms of sward yields and weed suppression.”
24. Materials and Methods
25. Line 131. Added “in moderate continental climate zone”.
26. Line 133. removed “in moderate continental climate zone”.
27. Line 137. Added “One-factor experiment treatments”.
28. Line 138. Removed set up as” ; added “arranged in a”. added “The experiment factor comprised two renovation methods that involved ploughing (P) or harrowing (H) plus non-renovated sward used as the control treatment.”
29. Line 142. Removed treatment; added “in those assigned to treatment H the topsoil was disked to a depth of 5 cm with compact harrow”; removed “H involved breaking up the topsoil to a depth of 5 cm with compact disk harrow”.
30. Line 146. Removed “non renovated treatment (NR)” ; added “NR treatment”.
31. Line 147. Remove “weak”; added “poorly developed”; removed “with”; added “that contained”.
32. Line 148. Removed with; added “and considerable numbers of”; removed “being quite numerous”.
33. Line 151. Removed in; added on; removed spring; added June 20; removed of; added 30 kg·ha^-1
34. Line 154. Removed Lucerne; added lucerne; added as converted to; removed rete; added rates.
35. Line 155. Removed “In the experiment”. Removed “t”; added “T”
36. Line 157. The seed mix of 30 kg·ha^-1 was drilled on 20^th of June without a cover crop.; removed “y”.
37. Line 173. Added “On each plot, prior to harvest”,
38. Line 175. Removed grassland sward; added herbage.
39. Line 176. Removed occupied; added covered; removed the; added its fresh; removed of the green fodder.
40. Line 177. Added “it was subsequently”; removed the green fodder was;
41. line 179. Added collected; added weighed and; added separately.
42. Line 190. Added “s” .
43. 210. Added “the sward”.
44. Line 211. removed “mixture sown to the piece; added “reseeds”.
45. Line 217. Removed “it is only the”; added “consequently”.
46. Line 218. Removed “the”; added “that”.
47. Line 219. Removed “in the period”.
48. Line 227. Removed observation on; added “field collecting of data on”.
49. Line 228. Removed “index SI”; added “indics “; remowed “were”; added “was”.
50. Line 229. added “attempts” to; removed “ing”
51. Line 237. Added “Tukey’s multiple”
52. Line 238. Removed “Tukey’s HSD”; Added (HSD).
53. Line 241. Removed in; added of ; added regrowth was regrowth was similar in all treatments; added in.
54. Line 243. Removed was similar. Removed .1.;
55. Line 244. Removed compact harrow (h)”; added prepared by disking (H).
56. Line 245. Removed .2. ; remowed in addition; added this said, weed mass in both renovation-involving treatments was.
57. Line 246. Removed higher; added lower; removed weed mass was recorded to ; added than that in ; removed r; ; removed than in the treatments after harrowing (h) and after ploughing (p) ; removed .2.;
58. Line . 248. Added likewise, in the .
59. Line 249. Added. The renewed swards (treatment P and H showed a significantly lower weed infestation; removed significantly higher mean of 2014-2016weed mass was found on; added than.
60. Line 251. Removed treatment; added sward; removed compared to that obtained on the other study treatment (P, H); (Fig. 1.3.).
61. Line 252. Removed the 3^rd sward regrowth ; added Regrowth 3 showed an increase of weed weight over that in regrowth 1 by 39.3 percentage points.
62. Line 255. Added have testified; removed control; added non-renovated.
63. Line 270. Removed (1) regrowth 1, (2) regrowth 2, (3) regrowth 3.
64. Line 292. Removed (1) regrowth 1, (2) regrowth 2, (3) regrowth 3.
65. Line 297. Removed Averaged over the years; added In terms of average values for the period.
66. Line 298. Removed .1.
67. Line 300. Removed sward; removed best; added sward; removed using compact harrow; added the renewal both by harrow; added by; removed for renovation ; removed is.
68. Line 301. Removed indicated; added shown; removed ures. .1, 2.2, 2.3.
69. Line 325. Removed (1) regrowth 1, (2) 2 regrowth, (3) regrowth 3”.
70. Line 327. Added “showed a significant impact on biomass index used as indicator of weediness when estimated on regrowth-to regrowth basis.”; removed method in regrowth; removed significant impact on biomass index used asindicator of weediness.
71. Line 330. Removed the renowed; added sward renewal; removed treatment after compact harrowing; added by topoil disking; removed had; added resulted in.
72. Line 332. Added that recorded for.
73. Line 334. Removed “.1”
74. Line 335. Removed and; added or.
75. Line 336. Removed treatment .
76. Line 338. Added (P).
77. Table 6. Across the table no 6 removed “,” ; added “.”.
78. Line 353. Removed object; added treatment; added (absolute weeds).
79. Line 354-368. The Latin names of weed species have been corrected to italics.
80. Line 392. Removed species; added taxons.
81. Line 397-407. The Latin names of weed species have been corrected to italics.
82. Line 400. Removed populating; added found in.
83. Line 404. Removed only.
84. Line 408. Removed index; added function.
85. Line 409. Removed the indicators of biological and segetal diversity, recorded in successive sward regrowths.
86. Line 410. Removedrelated to renovation method adopted.
87. Line 410. Added “affected by successive regrowths and, with the exception of regrowth 1, by whether or not seed renewal was performed. (Fig. 4). Thus, In regrowth 1, the values of both biodiversity indicators were similar for the two sward renewal methods and only slightly different from those for the non-renovated sward. Both SI and H’ values showed a slight tendency for decreased diversity in renewed swards (treatments P and H) vs. non-renewed control (NR). The calculated H’ values for the sward renovated after ploughing (P; 1.648) and after the use of compact harrow (H; 1.700) were similar. Likewise, Simpson’s function values (SI) for regrowth 1 showed the highest species biodiversity for the degraded sward (NR) and the lowest for soil disked to depth of 5 cm with compact harrow (H; Fig. 4a). The lowest biodiversity following the use of compact disk harrow (H) was the result of the sward having been dominated by four weed species: Taraxacum officinale, Achillea millefolium, Capsella bursa-pastoris and Stelaria media.The differentiating effect of sward renovation vis-a-vis non-renovated sward became more apparent with succesive regrowths and was particularly conspicuous for diversity as measured by H’ index values in regrowth 3.  This was particularly true of sward reseeds on the plough-prepared seedbed (treatment P) where the biodiversity underwent the greatest reduction with successive regrowths.”
88. Line 412. Removed “In this study, biodiversity indicator values calculated for the sward renovated after ploughing (P; 1.648) and after the use of compact harrow (H; 1.700) were similar. Likewise, Simpson’s index (SI) within regrowth 1 showed the highest species biodiversity for the degraded sward (NR) and the lowest for soil disked to depth of 5 cm with compact harrow (H; Fig. 4a). The lowest biodiversity following the use of compact disk harrow (H) was the result of the sward having been dominated by four weed species: Taraxacum officinale, Achillea millefolium, Capsella bursa-pastoris and Stelaria media”.
89. Line 445. Added “sward disked by harrow prior to renovation (H) and”. Removed “and sward disked by harrow prior to renovation (H)”.
90. Line 447. Added the; added NR; removed NR.
91. Line 449 added the.
92. Line 454. Added non renovated sward; removed “sward (non-renovated grasslad NR)”
93. 458. Removed shows; added showed; removed in relation to; added towards invading.
94. Line 459. Removed “developing in it”; Added “that has been described in the other scientific publications”.
95. Line 461. Added “d”.
96. Line 463. Removed is; added was.
97. Line 465. Removed of.
98. Line 466. Added varied with consecutive.
99. Line 468. Removed. Sward removal either by ploughing (P) or by harrowing (H). Added Regrowth 1 of sward reseeds in P and H renovation treatments showed.

• Line 470. Removed were demonstrated to bring about, added s; removed the; added in; added values.
• Line 471. Added averaged across; removed averages of the 1^st regrowth; removed the lowestthe.
• Line 473. Removed renovated; added renovationvs. Non renovated grassland.
• Line 475. Removed and sward harvests.
• Line 476. Added in consecutive sward harvests.
• Line 467. Removed recovery; added rebounding.
• Line 497. Removed the; added this; added carried out under Poland’s conditions, removed of the biodiversity of the grassland of the Experimental Farm at Grabów (Poland).
• Line 500. Removed as. ; added As.
• Line 501. Removed New Zealand; added New Zealand’s.
• Line 509. Added The opposite is true for weeds.
• Line 513. Added under this study.
• Line 524. Added based seedbed preparation in; added P.
• Line 526. Added that were; remowed brought; turned; removed ploughing; added the plough.
• Line 527. Removed that.
• Line 529. Removed reports; added reported.
• Line 530. Added In this study; removed The; added the.
• Line 531. Removed of the weed; added number of weeds.
• Line 532. Removed an.
• Line 550. Removed recover; added reboud.
• Line 561. Removed at; added in.
• Line 563. Added “.”; removed which produced a; added A.
• Line 571. Added [27].
• Line 575. Removed species; added different taxons; added “ed”.
• Line 581. Added attempt to.
• Line 582. Added “s”.
• Line 583. Added either; be to high and thus.
• Line 587. Removed The renovation of sward, performed either by ploughing (P) or by compact-harrowing to a depth of 5 cm (H) averaged across years 2014-2016 the weight and number of weeds compared to the effect of the non-renewed sward (NR). Plough renovation (P) and renovation that involved simplified tillage after harrowing (H), improved herbage yield, biomass index in relation to the sward non-renovated (NR).
• Line 586. Added. As shown by a three-year study in the years 2014-2016, sward renovation on a tract of grassland performed using seedbed preparation either by plouging (P) or by topsoil disking with compact harrow (H) resulted in an increase in dry herbage yield, biomass index with a concomittant decrease of average weed biomass as compared to the non-renovated sward (NR).
• The highest dry herbage yields averaged over the three-year period (2014-2016) were obtained in the 1st regrowth followed by a decrease of herbage yields in subsequent years.
• 601. Added to much lesser extent.
• Line 603. Removed index; added function.
• Line 607. Removed The respective SI values were 78.7, 80.8 and 85.8% in the first, second and third regrowth of sward.
• Line 607. Added Those three species accounted for 78.7; 80.8 oraz 85.8% of the total number of weeds in regrowths 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
• Line 619. Removed development; added appearance and increasing incidence.
• Line 620. Added as it may lead, after some time, to necessity of repeated sward renovation.

Thank you for attention

Eliza Gaweł

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The discussion on whether natural grasslands should be artificially cultivated is an old topic and there are many such studies. This article focuses on grasslands without the application of pesticides and herbicides, and the research content is innovative and has good guidance for practical production, this data is rare and very valuable. It's a very good piece of research, while the manuscript is not perfect in terms of organization. The main modifications are as follows:

1. The language need further edited by the English native speaker.
2. The Abstract part, you need to add a conclusive statement, what are the most important findings from all the experiments you have done, and what are the recommendations for practical production.
3. the description of the method section is not very clear, whether there is duplication, the specific implementation of the three treatments.
4. The study method only performed a simple ANOVA, which is far from sufficient, whether a factor analysis could be performed based on environmental factors and treatments to identify the key influences of various treatments on grassland biomass and diversity.
5. Table 1 needs to be supplemented with more detailed information on grassland vegetation and soil nutrient status, grassland biomass, cover, diversity index, and grassland soil moisture and nutrient status at the experimental site.
6. There is a large difference in precipitation from 2014-2016, do you think the significant precipitation abundance event in 2014 will affect the results of your experiment? You just averaged the years, please add interannual differences in the first part of the results, i.e. interannual variation in biomass and diversity for 2014, 2015 and 2016.
7. Where is Figure 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3, these figures are in Figure 1, please use a clear and simple way to link your figure and the text description, otherwise how can the reader find the figure in your text description.
8. Please redraw all the diagrams, remove the horizontal lines, try to be beautiful and easy to understand, the amount of information given in Figure 4 is very little, please consider whether to keep.
9. The conclusion section needs to be concise, leaving the main findings and recommendations, giving your most important findings and suggestions for practical production guidance.

Author Response

Response to Review 2.

"The impact of renovation of grassland on the development of segetal weeds in organic farming "Agricultyre 161178

Round 1.

I would like to thank the reviewer very much for his positive review and guidance on improving our manuscript. I have included a detailed response to the review below. In the text, the corrections reported by reviewer 2 are printed in blue.

1. Once all corrections have been made, we will return the manuscript to our colleague for linguistic correction.
2. The reviewer rightly recommended supplementing the "Abstract" chapter with the most important conclusions from the conducted research and recommendations for agricultural practice. This addition has been made.
3. You made a good point about the description of the research methods. I have included additional explanations on renovation methods, i.e. field preparation for sowing a bean-grass mixture under organic conditions.
4. Note on statistical analysis. In the studies conducted so far, I have used statistical analysis of the results according to the design of the field experiment. This principle was also applied in the research described in the manuscript. In order to verify the research hypothesis and to realise the aim of the study, a single point, univariate experiment with 3 research treatments (P, H, NR), in 4 repetitions, was set up under field conditions. Therefore, I believe that the Anova analysis of variance is completely sufficient to determine which of the compared renovation methods significantly increased the productivity of the sward and influenced the weed weight and biomass index.
5. I regretfully reject the reviewer's request to supplement Table 1 with additional information (vegetation and soil nutrient status, grassland biomass, cover, diversity index, and grassland soil moisture and nutrient status at the experimental site ) because some of them were not the subject of the study and I do not have such data; no such determinations were made in the sward. However, results for other parameters are included in the tables and figures as NR (non-renovated) treatment later in the manuscript (grassland biomass, diversity index).
6. Did precipitation higher in 2014 than in the other years (2015 and 2016) affect the parameters studied? Of course it did, yield and weight were higher in 2014 (wet year) than in the other years but the trend of change was the same. A higher yield was obtained in the renewed sites (P; H) than in the degraded sward (NR non-renovated). It was therefore decided to show the average yields of the 3 years of use, which reduced the number of figures and tables and thus the number of pages in the manuscript.
7. The drawings have been corrected - thank you for that pertinent comment. I have also corrected the notation of quoted figures in the text.
8. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the reviewer and resign from presenting Figure 4. The information contained in this figure is very important for assessing the biodiversity and dominance of a species in the sward.
9. I have corrected the conclusions.

Thank you to the reviewer for your valuable comments and for taking the time to review our article.

Yours sincerely

Eliza Gaweł

List of all corrections to the manuscript “The impact of renovation of grassland on the development of segetal weeds in organic farming”

Agriculture-1611578

Abstract

1. Line 14 added use, removed discontinued, added discontinuation of; removed results in restricted; added compromise; remove: < and; added and feed quality, remove of the quality.
2. Line 18. Because of the importance of grasslands for fodder production and numerous ecosystem-related benefits for man and for the environment sward degradation ought to be prevented through renovation.
3. Line 19. Added (province of Mazowieckie, Poland). Added “The experiment involved sward reseeded after ploughing (P), after disking with compact harrow (H) and non-renovated sward as the control treatment.”
4. Line 24. Remove “Likewise, both renovation methods”. Added “The ploughing-based renovation method (P), removed “ restricting” added strongly restricting.
5. Line 26. Removed “index”, added “function” ; added “harrow method (H) and the”
6. Line 27. Added “population in the studied treatments Of these, Taraxacum officinale, Achillea milefolium, Capsella bursa-pastoris and Plantago maior”
7. Line 55. Added “Agricultural use of grasslands and weather conditions also affect the degree of weed infestation and the proportion between herbage yield and weed weight of the sward. Sward biomass and weed weight are negatively correlated and, immediately after sward renovation, annual weeds are more numerous than perennials (11).”
8. Line 78. Removed “consists”, added “involves”; removed “of”
9. Line 79. Added “,”; removed “or, in”
10. Line 82. Added “rapid” ; remove “of the”.
11. Line 87. Removed “cows’”; added “of cows”.
12. Line 88. Added “a”
13. Line 89. Remove “propr”; added “adequate”…..added “particular”.
14. Line 90.added “in the sward”, ; remove “species” added “component”.
15. Line 91 Added “, whereas intensive use and overgrazing favour prevalence of grass in the sward”.
16. Line 92. Remove “competive”; added “to compete”.
17. Line 94 “removed Leyss”.
18. 103. Removed “that dealt”; added “dealing”.
19. Line 106. Added “s”
20. Line 107. Removed in; added which in ; added is; removed “reducing”; added “reduced”; removed “the control measures”.
21. Line 116. Added “The research hypothesis assumes an increase in sward productivity and a decrease in weight and number of weeds as a result of sward renewal”.
22. Line 118. The objective of this study was to determine how two sward renovation methods affect specific composition of the weeds, weight and their biodiversity and domination indicators of weeds infesting an organically managed piece of grassland.
23. Line 120. Added “The objective of the study conducted under organic farming management was to find out whether and to what extent two methods of grassland renewal would affect the performance of the sward including yields specific composition and weight of weeds, Shannon-Wiener’s diversity index (H’) and Simpson’s dominance index (SI) vis-a-vis those indicators in non-renovated sward (NR). The study was also supposed to furnish information on which of the two grassland renewal methods would be more beneficial to farming practise in terms of sward yields and weed suppression.”
24. Materials and Methods
25. Line 131. Added “in moderate continental climate zone”.
26. Line 133. removed “in moderate continental climate zone”.
27. Line 137. Added “One-factor experiment treatments”.
28. Line 138. Removed set up as” ; added “arranged in a”. added “The experiment factor comprised two renovation methods that involved ploughing (P) or harrowing (H) plus non-renovated sward used as the control treatment.”
29. Line 142. Removed treatment; added “in those assigned to treatment H the topsoil was disked to a depth of 5 cm with compact harrow”; removed “H involved breaking up the topsoil to a depth of 5 cm with compact disk harrow”.
30. Line 146. Removed “non renovated treatment (NR)” ; added “NR treatment”.
31. Line 147. Remove “weak”; added “poorly developed”; removed “with”; added “that contained”.
32. Line 148. Removed with; added “and considerable numbers of”; removed “being quite numerous”.
33. Line 151. Removed in; added on; removed spring; added June 20; removed of; added 30 kg·ha^-1
34. Line 154. Removed Lucerne; added lucerne; added as converted to; removed rete; added rates.
35. Line 155. Removed “In the experiment”. Removed “t”; added “T”
36. Line 157. The seed mix of 30 kg·ha^-1 was drilled on 20^th of June without a cover crop.; removed “y”.
37. Line 173. Added “On each plot, prior to harvest”,
38. Line 175. Removed grassland sward; added herbage.
39. Line 176. Removed occupied; added covered; removed the; added its fresh; removed of the green fodder.
40. Line 177. Added “it was subsequently”; removed the green fodder was;
41. line 179. Added collected; added weighed and; added separately.
42. Line 190. Added “s” .
43. 210. Added “the sward”.
44. Line 211. removed “mixture sown to the piece; added “reseeds”.
45. Line 217. Removed “it is only the”; added “consequently”.
46. Line 218. Removed “the”; added “that”.
47. Line 219. Removed “in the period”.
48. Line 227. Removed observation on; added “field collecting of data on”.
49. Line 228. Removed “index SI”; added “indics “; remowed “were”; added “was”.
50. Line 229. added “attempts” to; removed “ing”
51. Line 237. Added “Tukey’s multiple”
52. Line 238. Removed “Tukey’s HSD”; Added (HSD).
53. Line 241. Removed in; added of ; added regrowth was regrowth was similar in all treatments; added in.
54. Line 243. Removed was similar. Removed .1.;
55. Line 244. Removed compact harrow (h)”; added prepared by disking (H).
56. Line 245. Removed .2. ; remowed in addition; added this said, weed mass in both renovation-involving treatments was.
57. Line 246. Removed higher; added lower; removed weed mass was recorded to ; added than that in ; removed r; ; removed than in the treatments after harrowing (h) and after ploughing (p) ; removed .2.;
58. Line . 248. Added likewise, in the .
59. Line 249. Added. The renewed swards (treatment P and H showed a significantly lower weed infestation; removed significantly higher mean of 2014-2016weed mass was found on; added than.
60. Line 251. Removed treatment; added sward; removed compared to that obtained on the other study treatment (P, H); (Fig. 1.3.).
61. Line 252. Removed the 3^rd sward regrowth ; added Regrowth 3 showed an increase of weed weight over that in regrowth 1 by 39.3 percentage points.
62. Line 255. Added have testified; removed control; added non-renovated.
63. Line 270. Removed (1) regrowth 1, (2) regrowth 2, (3) regrowth 3.
64. Line 292. Removed (1) regrowth 1, (2) regrowth 2, (3) regrowth 3.
65. Line 297. Removed Averaged over the years; added In terms of average values for the period.
66. Line 298. Removed .1.
67. Line 300. Removed sward; removed best; added sward; removed using compact harrow; added the renewal both by harrow; added by; removed for renovation ; removed is.
68. Line 301. Removed indicated; added shown; removed ures. .1, 2.2, 2.3.
69. Line 325. Removed (1) regrowth 1, (2) 2 regrowth, (3) regrowth 3”.
70. Line 327. Added “showed a significant impact on biomass index used as indicator of weediness when estimated on regrowth-to regrowth basis.”; removed method in regrowth; removed significant impact on biomass index used asindicator of weediness.
71. Line 330. Removed the renowed; added sward renewal; removed treatment after compact harrowing; added by topoil disking; removed had; added resulted in.
72. Line 332. Added that recorded for.
73. Line 334. Removed “.1”
74. Line 335. Removed and; added or.
75. Line 336. Removed treatment .
76. Line 338. Added (P).
77. Table 6. Across the table no 6 removed “,” ; added “.”.
78. Line 353. Removed object; added treatment; added (absolute weeds).
79. Line 354-368. The Latin names of weed species have been corrected to italics.
80. Line 392. Removed species; added taxons.
81. Line 397-407. The Latin names of weed species have been corrected to italics.
82. Line 400. Removed populating; added found in.
83. Line 404. Removed only.
84. Line 408. Removed index; added function.
85. Line 409. Removed the indicators of biological and segetal diversity, recorded in successive sward regrowths.
86. Line 410. Removedrelated to renovation method adopted.
87. Line 410. Added “affected by successive regrowths and, with the exception of regrowth 1, by whether or not seed renewal was performed. (Fig. 4). Thus, In regrowth 1, the values of both biodiversity indicators were similar for the two sward renewal methods and only slightly different from those for the non-renovated sward. Both SI and H’ values showed a slight tendency for decreased diversity in renewed swards (treatments P and H) vs. non-renewed control (NR). The calculated H’ values for the sward renovated after ploughing (P; 1.648) and after the use of compact harrow (H; 1.700) were similar. Likewise, Simpson’s function values (SI) for regrowth 1 showed the highest species biodiversity for the degraded sward (NR) and the lowest for soil disked to depth of 5 cm with compact harrow (H; Fig. 4a). The lowest biodiversity following the use of compact disk harrow (H) was the result of the sward having been dominated by four weed species: Taraxacum officinale, Achillea millefolium, Capsella bursa-pastoris and Stelaria media.The differentiating effect of sward renovation vis-a-vis non-renovated sward became more apparent with succesive regrowths and was particularly conspicuous for diversity as measured by H’ index values in regrowth 3.  This was particularly true of sward reseeds on the plough-prepared seedbed (treatment P) where the biodiversity underwent the greatest reduction with successive regrowths.”
88. Line 412. Removed “In this study, biodiversity indicator values calculated for the sward renovated after ploughing (P; 1.648) and after the use of compact harrow (H; 1.700) were similar. Likewise, Simpson’s index (SI) within regrowth 1 showed the highest species biodiversity for the degraded sward (NR) and the lowest for soil disked to depth of 5 cm with compact harrow (H; Fig. 4a). The lowest biodiversity following the use of compact disk harrow (H) was the result of the sward having been dominated by four weed species: Taraxacum officinale, Achillea millefolium, Capsella bursa-pastoris and Stelaria media”.
89. Line 445. Added “sward disked by harrow prior to renovation (H) and”. Removed “and sward disked by harrow prior to renovation (H)”.
90. Line 447. Added the; added NR; removed NR.
91. Line 449 added the.
92. Line 454. Added non renovated sward; removed “sward (non-renovated grasslad NR)”
93. 458. Removed shows; added showed; removed in relation to; added towards invading.
94. Line 459. Removed “developing in it”; Added “that has been described in the other scientific publications”.
95. Line 461. Added “d”.
96. Line 463. Removed is; added was.
97. Line 465. Removed of.
98. Line 466. Added varied with consecutive.
99. Line 468. Removed. Sward removal either by ploughing (P) or by harrowing (H). Added Regrowth 1 of sward reseeds in P and H renovation treatments showed.

• Line 470. Removed were demonstrated to bring about, added s; removed the; added in; added values.
• Line 471. Added averaged across; removed averages of the 1^st regrowth; removed the lowestthe.
• Line 473. Removed renovated; added renovationvs. Non renovated grassland.
• Line 475. Removed and sward harvests.
• Line 476. Added in consecutive sward harvests.
• Line 467. Removed recovery; added rebounding.
• Line 497. Removed the; added this; added carried out under Poland’s conditions, removed of the biodiversity of the grassland of the Experimental Farm at Grabów (Poland).
• Line 500. Removed as. ; added As.
• Line 501. Removed New Zealand; added New Zealand’s.
• Line 509. Added The opposite is true for weeds.
• Line 513. Added under this study.
• Line 524. Added based seedbed preparation in; added P.
• Line 526. Added that were; remowed brought; turned; removed ploughing; added the plough.
• Line 527. Removed that.
• Line 529. Removed reports; added reported.
• Line 530. Added In this study; removed The; added the.
• Line 531. Removed of the weed; added number of weeds.
• Line 532. Removed an.
• Line 550. Removed recover; added reboud.
• Line 561. Removed at; added in.
• Line 563. Added “.”; removed which produced a; added A.
• Line 571. Added [27].
• Line 575. Removed species; added different taxons; added “ed”.
• Line 581. Added attempt to.
• Line 582. Added “s”.
• Line 583. Added either; be to high and thus.
• Line 587. Removed The renovation of sward, performed either by ploughing (P) or by compact-harrowing to a depth of 5 cm (H) averaged across years 2014-2016 the weight and number of weeds compared to the effect of the non-renewed sward (NR). Plough renovation (P) and renovation that involved simplified tillage after harrowing (H), improved herbage yield, biomass index in relation to the sward non-renovated (NR).
• Line 586. Added. As shown by a three-year study in the years 2014-2016, sward renovation on a tract of grassland performed using seedbed preparation either by plouging (P) or by topsoil disking with compact harrow (H) resulted in an increase in dry herbage yield, biomass index with a concomittant decrease of average weed biomass as compared to the non-renovated sward (NR).
• The highest dry herbage yields averaged over the three-year period (2014-2016) were obtained in the 1st regrowth followed by a decrease of herbage yields in subsequent years.
• 601. Added to much lesser extent.
• Line 603. Removed index; added function.
• Line 607. Removed The respective SI values were 78.7, 80.8 and 85.8% in the first, second and third regrowth of sward.
• Line 607. Added Those three species accounted for 78.7; 80.8 oraz 85.8% of the total number of weeds in regrowths 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
• Line 619. Removed development; added appearance and increasing incidence.
• Line 620. Added as it may lead, after some time, to necessity of repeated sward renovation.

Thank you for attention

Eliza Gaweł

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments from the reviewer:

I have read the manuscript “The impact of renovation of grassland on the development of segetal weeds in organic farms” by Gaweł et al. submitted to the journal Agriculture (MDPI). The manuscript addresses important aspects to be considered in the management of meadows in organic farms. First, it addresses aspects related to the infestation by weeds in meadows and its potential impacts to animal nutrition and economic uses of grasslands. Second, it tests two alternative methods of commonly applied for grassland renovation and evaluate its effects on weed control. The ideas underlying the paper are interesting, but I have major concerns regarding the structure of the text, the experiment description and data analysis as well as regarding the presentation and discussion of results.

In my opinion, the introduction of the manuscript is not conducting the reader in the direction of understanding the objectives of the study. I think that the introduction doesn’t present enough arguments to support the objective of the study, and the authors included some aspects which, in my opinion, are not clearly explained or in line with what was evaluated in the experiment conducted (e.g. the ideas of absolute vs relative weeds, lines 47-50; or the lack of definition of proper management and proper care of sward, lines 76-82). Also, I consider that the authors introduced the objective of the study in a very general way, whereas I believe that the objective(s) could be better explored if presented as individual study questions (or hypotheses, statements, etc.) to which specific predictions and expectations should be associated (as well as the theoretical background included in the previous paragraphs of the introduction). For example, there is no mention in the introduction and no specific question related to the impacts of environmental fluctuation on the establishment of weeds in comparison to the establishment of target species. Yet, such aspect receives much attention in the methods session in order to justify potential differences observed across years, or to explain the low abundance of target species (if I understood correctly).

Additionally, I think that the manuscript lacks consistency. There are some confusing parts in the text and others that resemble a ‘patchwork’ with no connection (or sequence) between the different paragraphs, especially in the discussion. For instance, there are results being presented in the methods (e.g. lines 174-176), the design of the experiment is not clearly explained (lines 187-193) and the total number of experimental plots is not informed (lines 111-112), and there are different poorly constructed and confusing sentences (or even sentences out of context) throughout the text (e.g. lines 41-44; 384-386; 392-396; 474-476). As for the data analysis and the presentation and discussion of the results, I believe great improvements should be made. First, I think the authors should use a generalized mixed-effects model to analyze the data. By doing so they can, for example, control for any temporal and/or spatial correlation among their experimental plots as well as use the proper families of error distribution, as in the case of assessing the number of species of weeds (i.e. counting data). Also, why not using R in the data analysis? R is a language and a very robust, free software which allows you to perform a plethora of different analyses. Moreover, the results are being presented in a very poor manner. All graphs are confusing, have no clear resolution, no proper naming of plots axis, and the captions do not fully explain the information depicted by each figure.

Finally, the discussion is the part of the manuscript in which the ‘patchwork’ can be more clearly identified. Although having no excessive text, the discussion lacks focusing on the results found by the authors, thus making some claims which cannot be supported by the study’s real findings (e.g. lines 371-373; 397-401), mentioning treatments not clearly explained (e.g. line 472), repeating arguments previously discussed (e.g. lines 472-476), or discussing aspects far from being considered in the study and not supported by the analysis performed and results presented (e.g. lines 467-471; 480-487). Likewise, the conclusions seem to be largely a repetition of the results presented before, but written in a different way (lines 489-507). The final aspects presented in the conclusions session (lines 508-512) may be considered as so, however the text needs improving.

I strongly believe that, before its next submission, the manuscript should be revised by a senior researcher in terms of structure of the text, appropriate use of English language, correct data analysis and proper presentation of the results (i.e. with graphs of good quality and tables in the correct scientific format). Therefore, for the time being, I have to suggest the rejection of this manuscript. Nonetheless, the data collection and analysis required a considerable amount of work, and the results deserve to get communicated to scientific audience. Clear communication needs thinking and time, which should be allocated to this manuscript before the next submission.

I apologize for any misunderstandings and for not being more positive at this moment.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Review 3.

"The impact of renovation of grassland on the development of segetal weeds in organic farming" Agriculture 1611578

Round 1.

I am grateful to the reviewer for taking the time to evaluate our manuscript. The reviewer raised many objections concerning basically all chapters of the manuscript. I would like to point out that I addressed every remark and objection raised by the reviewer. Most of the comments were right and therefore, I made appropriate corrections in the text (corrections marked in red). I present a detailed response to the review:

The reviewer commented that the introduction did not guide the purpose of the study. I have complied with the reviewer's comment and reworded the purpose of the study.

Next, according to the reviewer, the purpose of the research is not clearly formulated, for example why absolute and relative weeds are mentioned (lines 47-50).

Regarding weeds. In the grassland sward a distinction is made between absolute weeds that impair the value of the forage, such as plants that are poisonous or impair the digestibility of the forage. The second group of weeds in grassland are relative weeds which are herbs that enrich the botanical and chemical composition of the forage, increase the biodiversity of the sward and provide the animals with various nutrients, mainly minerals and active substances and thus support the animal organism (as described by Döring et al. Weeds in organic Fertility-building leys: aspects of species richness and weed management. Organic Farming. 2017, 3(1), 51-65. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.12924/of2017.03010051, item 11 in the list of cited literature). Weed species belonging to the absolute weed group are listed and labelled in Table 6. In the case of our experiment there were only single specimens of weeds from this group therefore it can be assumed that their harmfulness to animals was low. Since poisonous species were recognised in our study, in my opinion, the paragraph concerning absolute weeds can be left in the introduction of the manuscript.

(2) As suggested by the reviewer, lines 76-82 add that "intensive use and overgrazing of animals promotes the development of weeds in the grassland sward. "

The reviewer rightly noted the lack of a research hypothesis in our manuscript. I have complied with this reviewer's comment and have added a research hypothesis and re-edited the aim of the study.

Note on 'impacts of environmental fluctuation on the establishment of weeds'. A single-factor experiment where restoration methods were a factor was set up at one test point. The field experiment occupied a small area in a sward of degraded grassland. Therefore, I suppose that soil variability, soil moisture and soil pH had little effect on weed development in the renovated sward (if I understood the reviewer's comment correctly). A decrease in the number of annual weeds was observed in successive years after renovation and an increase in the number of noxious perennial weeds. In subsequent years of use, the trend of these changes was similar, with differences only in sward regrowth. Therefore, the results are presented as averages over 3 years for each sward regrowth.

(5) Another comment concerns 'manuscript lacks consistency'. I am trying to improve this article well to make it understandable to the reader. We spent a lot of time making observations in the field. Developing the results was also labour intensive and required a lot of commitment from the whole research team, so we would be sorry if we could not publish these research results.

6. I have corrected all the figures, I have written the results in Table 6 correctly; I have removed the notation of the decimal numbers " , "; I have written "."

(7) A note on statistical methods. I am very sorry, but I think the statistical methods we used are sufficient to discuss the results obtained. From the statistical method proposed by the reviewer "generalized mixed-effects model to analyze the data" and "why not using R in the data analysis? " will be used when writing another scientific publication.

(8) A very pertinent comment concerns the chapter on 'discussion'. I have made appropriate amendments to eliminate inaccuracies and repetitions in this chapter.

(9) I have corrected all the drawings.

I thank the reviewer for all his comments and suggestions and at the same time apologise for rejecting some of the suggestions for amendments.

Yours sincerely

Eliza Gaweł

List of all corrections to the manuscript “The impact of renovation of grassland on the development of segetal weeds in organic farming”

Agriculture-1611578

Abstract

1. Line 14 added use, removed discontinued, added discontinuation of; removed results in restricted; added compromise; remove: < and; added and feed quality, remove of the quality.
2. Line 18. Because of the importance of grasslands for fodder production and numerous ecosystem-related benefits for man and for the environment sward degradation ought to be prevented through renovation.
3. Line 19. Added (province of Mazowieckie, Poland). Added “The experiment involved sward reseeded after ploughing (P), after disking with compact harrow (H) and non-renovated sward as the control treatment.”
4. Line 24. Remove “Likewise, both renovation methods”. Added “The ploughing-based renovation method (P), removed “ restricting” added strongly restricting.
5. Line 26. Removed “index”, added “function” ; added “harrow method (H) and the”
6. Line 27. Added “population in the studied treatments Of these, Taraxacum officinale, Achillea milefolium, Capsella bursa-pastoris and Plantago maior”
7. Line 55. Added “Agricultural use of grasslands and weather conditions also affect the degree of weed infestation and the proportion between herbage yield and weed weight of the sward. Sward biomass and weed weight are negatively correlated and, immediately after sward renovation, annual weeds are more numerous than perennials (11).”
8. Line 78. Removed “consists”, added “involves”; removed “of”
9. Line 79. Added “,”; removed “or, in”
10. Line 82. Added “rapid” ; remove “of the”.
11. Line 87. Removed “cows’”; added “of cows”.
12. Line 88. Added “a”
13. Line 89. Remove “propr”; added “adequate”…..added “particular”.
14. Line 90.added “in the sward”, ; remove “species” added “component”.
15. Line 91 Added “, whereas intensive use and overgrazing favour prevalence of grass in the sward”.
16. Line 92. Remove “competive”; added “to compete”.
17. Line 94 “removed Leyss”.
18. 103. Removed “that dealt”; added “dealing”.
19. Line 106. Added “s”
20. Line 107. Removed in; added which in ; added is; removed “reducing”; added “reduced”; removed “the control measures”.
21. Line 116. Added “The research hypothesis assumes an increase in sward productivity and a decrease in weight and number of weeds as a result of sward renewal”.
22. Line 118. The objective of this study was to determine how two sward renovation methods affect specific composition of the weeds, weight and their biodiversity and domination indicators of weeds infesting an organically managed piece of grassland.
23. Line 120. Added “The objective of the study conducted under organic farming management was to find out whether and to what extent two methods of grassland renewal would affect the performance of the sward including yields specific composition and weight of weeds, Shannon-Wiener’s diversity index (H’) and Simpson’s dominance index (SI) vis-a-vis those indicators in non-renovated sward (NR). The study was also supposed to furnish information on which of the two grassland renewal methods would be more beneficial to farming practise in terms of sward yields and weed suppression.”
24. Materials and Methods
25. Line 131. Added “in moderate continental climate zone”.
26. Line 133. removed “in moderate continental climate zone”.
27. Line 137. Added “One-factor experiment treatments”.
28. Line 138. Removed set up as” ; added “arranged in a”. added “The experiment factor comprised two renovation methods that involved ploughing (P) or harrowing (H) plus non-renovated sward used as the control treatment.”
29. Line 142. Removed treatment; added “in those assigned to treatment H the topsoil was disked to a depth of 5 cm with compact harrow”; removed “H involved breaking up the topsoil to a depth of 5 cm with compact disk harrow”.
30. Line 146. Removed “non renovated treatment (NR)” ; added “NR treatment”.
31. Line 147. Remove “weak”; added “poorly developed”; removed “with”; added “that contained”.
32. Line 148. Removed with; added “and considerable numbers of”; removed “being quite numerous”.
33. Line 151. Removed in; added on; removed spring; added June 20; removed of; added 30 kg·ha^-1
34. Line 154. Removed Lucerne; added lucerne; added as converted to; removed rete; added rates.
35. Line 155. Removed “In the experiment”. Removed “t”; added “T”
36. Line 157. The seed mix of 30 kg·ha^-1 was drilled on 20^th of June without a cover crop.; removed “y”.
37. Line 173. Added “On each plot, prior to harvest”,
38. Line 175. Removed grassland sward; added herbage.
39. Line 176. Removed occupied; added covered; removed the; added its fresh; removed of the green fodder.
40. Line 177. Added “it was subsequently”; removed the green fodder was;
41. line 179. Added collected; added weighed and; added separately.
42. Line 190. Added “s” .
43. 210. Added “the sward”.
44. Line 211. removed “mixture sown to the piece; added “reseeds”.
45. Line 217. Removed “it is only the”; added “consequently”.
46. Line 218. Removed “the”; added “that”.
47. Line 219. Removed “in the period”.
48. Line 227. Removed observation on; added “field collecting of data on”.
49. Line 228. Removed “index SI”; added “indics “; remowed “were”; added “was”.
50. Line 229. added “attempts” to; removed “ing”
51. Line 237. Added “Tukey’s multiple”
52. Line 238. Removed “Tukey’s HSD”; Added (HSD).
53. Line 241. Removed in; added of ; added regrowth was regrowth was similar in all treatments; added in.
54. Line 243. Removed was similar. Removed .1.;
55. Line 244. Removed compact harrow (h)”; added prepared by disking (H).
56. Line 245. Removed .2. ; remowed in addition; added this said, weed mass in both renovation-involving treatments was.
57. Line 246. Removed higher; added lower; removed weed mass was recorded to ; added than that in ; removed r; ; removed than in the treatments after harrowing (h) and after ploughing (p) ; removed .2.;
58. Line . 248. Added likewise, in the .
59. Line 249. Added. The renewed swards (treatment P and H showed a significantly lower weed infestation; removed significantly higher mean of 2014-2016weed mass was found on; added than.
60. Line 251. Removed treatment; added sward; removed compared to that obtained on the other study treatment (P, H); (Fig. 1.3.).
61. Line 252. Removed the 3^rd sward regrowth ; added Regrowth 3 showed an increase of weed weight over that in regrowth 1 by 39.3 percentage points.
62. Line 255. Added have testified; removed control; added non-renovated.
63. Line 270. Removed (1) regrowth 1, (2) regrowth 2, (3) regrowth 3.
64. Line 292. Removed (1) regrowth 1, (2) regrowth 2, (3) regrowth 3.
65. Line 297. Removed Averaged over the years; added In terms of average values for the period.
66. Line 298. Removed .1.
67. Line 300. Removed sward; removed best; added sward; removed using compact harrow; added the renewal both by harrow; added by; removed for renovation ; removed is.
68. Line 301. Removed indicated; added shown; removed ures. .1, 2.2, 2.3.
69. Line 325. Removed (1) regrowth 1, (2) 2 regrowth, (3) regrowth 3”.
70. Line 327. Added “showed a significant impact on biomass index used as indicator of weediness when estimated on regrowth-to regrowth basis.”; removed method in regrowth; removed significant impact on biomass index used asindicator of weediness.
71. Line 330. Removed the renowed; added sward renewal; removed treatment after compact harrowing; added by topoil disking; removed had; added resulted in.
72. Line 332. Added that recorded for.
73. Line 334. Removed “.1”
74. Line 335. Removed and; added or.
75. Line 336. Removed treatment .
76. Line 338. Added (P).
77. Table 6. Across the table no 6 removed “,” ; added “.”.
78. Line 353. Removed object; added treatment; added (absolute weeds).
79. Line 354-368. The Latin names of weed species have been corrected to italics.
80. Line 392. Removed species; added taxons.
81. Line 397-407. The Latin names of weed species have been corrected to italics.
82. Line 400. Removed populating; added found in.
83. Line 404. Removed only.
84. Line 408. Removed index; added function.
85. Line 409. Removed the indicators of biological and segetal diversity, recorded in successive sward regrowths.
86. Line 410. Removedrelated to renovation method adopted.
87. Line 410. Added “affected by successive regrowths and, with the exception of regrowth 1, by whether or not seed renewal was performed. (Fig. 4). Thus, In regrowth 1, the values of both biodiversity indicators were similar for the two sward renewal methods and only slightly different from those for the non-renovated sward. Both SI and H’ values showed a slight tendency for decreased diversity in renewed swards (treatments P and H) vs. non-renewed control (NR). The calculated H’ values for the sward renovated after ploughing (P; 1.648) and after the use of compact harrow (H; 1.700) were similar. Likewise, Simpson’s function values (SI) for regrowth 1 showed the highest species biodiversity for the degraded sward (NR) and the lowest for soil disked to depth of 5 cm with compact harrow (H; Fig. 4a). The lowest biodiversity following the use of compact disk harrow (H) was the result of the sward having been dominated by four weed species: Taraxacum officinale, Achillea millefolium, Capsella bursa-pastoris and Stelaria media.The differentiating effect of sward renovation vis-a-vis non-renovated sward became more apparent with succesive regrowths and was particularly conspicuous for diversity as measured by H’ index values in regrowth 3.  This was particularly true of sward reseeds on the plough-prepared seedbed (treatment P) where the biodiversity underwent the greatest reduction with successive regrowths.”
88. Line 412. Removed “In this study, biodiversity indicator values calculated for the sward renovated after ploughing (P; 1.648) and after the use of compact harrow (H; 1.700) were similar. Likewise, Simpson’s index (SI) within regrowth 1 showed the highest species biodiversity for the degraded sward (NR) and the lowest for soil disked to depth of 5 cm with compact harrow (H; Fig. 4a). The lowest biodiversity following the use of compact disk harrow (H) was the result of the sward having been dominated by four weed species: Taraxacum officinale, Achillea millefolium, Capsella bursa-pastoris and Stelaria media”.
89. Line 445. Added “sward disked by harrow prior to renovation (H) and”. Removed “and sward disked by harrow prior to renovation (H)”.
90. Line 447. Added the; added NR; removed NR.
91. Line 449 added the.
92. Line 454. Added non renovated sward; removed “sward (non-renovated grasslad NR)”
93. 458. Removed shows; added showed; removed in relation to; added towards invading.
94. Line 459. Removed “developing in it”; Added “that has been described in the other scientific publications”.
95. Line 461. Added “d”.
96. Line 463. Removed is; added was.
97. Line 465. Removed of.
98. Line 466. Added varied with consecutive.
99. Line 468. Removed. Sward removal either by ploughing (P) or by harrowing (H). Added Regrowth 1 of sward reseeds in P and H renovation treatments showed.

• Line 470. Removed were demonstrated to bring about, added s; removed the; added in; added values.
• Line 471. Added averaged across; removed averages of the 1^st regrowth; removed the lowestthe.
• Line 473. Removed renovated; added renovationvs. Non renovated grassland.
• Line 475. Removed and sward harvests.
• Line 476. Added in consecutive sward harvests.
• Line 467. Removed recovery; added rebounding.
• Line 497. Removed the; added this; added carried out under Poland’s conditions, removed of the biodiversity of the grassland of the Experimental Farm at Grabów (Poland).
• Line 500. Removed as. ; added As.
• Line 501. Removed New Zealand; added New Zealand’s.
• Line 509. Added The opposite is true for weeds.
• Line 513. Added under this study.
• Line 524. Added based seedbed preparation in; added P.
• Line 526. Added that were; remowed brought; turned; removed ploughing; added the plough.
• Line 527. Removed that.
• Line 529. Removed reports; added reported.
• Line 530. Added In this study; removed The; added the.
• Line 531. Removed of the weed; added number of weeds.
• Line 532. Removed an.
• Line 550. Removed recover; added reboud.
• Line 561. Removed at; added in.
• Line 563. Added “.”; removed which produced a; added A.
• Line 571. Added [27].
• Line 575. Removed species; added different taxons; added “ed”.
• Line 581. Added attempt to.
• Line 582. Added “s”.
• Line 583. Added either; be to high and thus.
• Line 587. Removed The renovation of sward, performed either by ploughing (P) or by compact-harrowing to a depth of 5 cm (H) averaged across years 2014-2016 the weight and number of weeds compared to the effect of the non-renewed sward (NR). Plough renovation (P) and renovation that involved simplified tillage after harrowing (H), improved herbage yield, biomass index in relation to the sward non-renovated (NR).
• Line 586. Added. As shown by a three-year study in the years 2014-2016, sward renovation on a tract of grassland performed using seedbed preparation either by plouging (P) or by topsoil disking with compact harrow (H) resulted in an increase in dry herbage yield, biomass index with a concomittant decrease of average weed biomass as compared to the non-renovated sward (NR).
• The highest dry herbage yields averaged over the three-year period (2014-2016) were obtained in the 1st regrowth followed by a decrease of herbage yields in subsequent years.
• 601. Added to much lesser extent.
• Line 603. Removed index; added function.
• Line 607. Removed The respective SI values were 78.7, 80.8 and 85.8% in the first, second and third regrowth of sward.
• Line 607. Added Those three species accounted for 78.7; 80.8 oraz 85.8% of the total number of weeds in regrowths 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
• Line 619. Removed development; added appearance and increasing incidence.
• Line 620. Added as it may lead, after some time, to necessity of repeated sward renovation.

Thank you for attention

Eliza Gaweł

Author Response File: Author Response.docx